And last week, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department for Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick for allegedly lying to Congress regarding her allegations that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in high school, helped drug girls so they could be gang-raped.

On Friday, Grassley sent a second criminal referral to the DoJ. He wrote:

Yesterday, I wrote to you referring Mr. Michael Avenatti and Ms. Julie Swetnick for investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001, and 1505, for materially false statements they made to the Senate Judiciary Committee during the course of the Committee’s investigation into allegations against Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh.

I write today because of important additional information regarding Mr. Avenatti that has since come to the Committee’s attention. In light of this new information, I am now referring Mr. Avenatti for investigation of additional potential violations of those same laws, stemming from a second declaration he submitted to the Committee that also appears to contain materially false statements. As explained below, according to NBC News, the purported declarant of that sworn statement has disavowed its key allegations and claimed that Mr. Avenatti “twisted [her] words.”

It’s not clear year what impact it will have if any at all, but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has asked the Justice Department to launch an investigation into creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client, Julie Swetnick because they likely provided his panel with “materially false” information when they accused Justice Brett Kavanaugh of participating in gang rapes.

The second referral comes after NBC News essentially admitted in a story Thursday that it withheld information that would have cleared then-Judge Kavanangh of Swetnick’s allegations, which were attested to by Avenatti.

Swetnick, according to Avenatti, claimed that in high school Kavanaugh and friends “spiked punch” with drugs and alcohol to seduce girls who were then made part of a “rape train” for other boys to sexually assault, as the Daily Wire reported.

Soon after, NBC broadcast an interview with Swetnick in which she undermined sworn testimony she had given the Senate Judiciary Committee (and which has now earned her and Avenatti a criminal referral to the Justice Department).

After that, Avenatti offered up another sworn statement from a fourth anonymous accuser who he claimed knew Swetnick and who also witnessed Kavanaugh’s alleged acts.

At least, that’s what Avenatti convinced her to say in his affidavit.

Now, NBC has revealed that during an interview with that woman arranged by Avenatti on Sept. 30 she denied making the claims he in his affidavit, telling the network that she never did witness any such behavior from Kavanaugh.

When the network talked to the anonymous accuser once more following the publication of the affidavit, Avenatti claimed that it did not correctly represent her claims and that she’d barely “skimmed” it before it was released.

In the end, NBC determined her story “wasn’t credible” — but never shared this information or judgment with the public.

As for Avenatti, he lashed out at Sen. Grassley over the criminal referrals — because what else can he do?

“How ignorant is Grassley? He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen – it is all for show. And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS. This is what happens when you never attend law school,” he tweeted.

How ignorant is Grassley? He keeps publicly demanding an investigation knowing full well that it will likely never happen – it is all for show. And if it does, he has placed Kavanaugh at risk of being removed from the SCOTUS. This is what happens when you never attend law school.

Why does the good senator from Iowa need a law degree to understand when he and his committee have been lied to?

And what makes Avenatti believe that there won’t be a criminal investigation of his actions and statements, as well as those of his client?

Finally, how does investigating and potentially prosecuting a porn lawyer for making false statements to Congress endanger a sitting Supreme Court justice?

Maybe it’s Avenatti who should have paid closer attention in law school.

If, in fact, it is found that this porn lawyer and his client lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee just to entrap and ruin a decent man, here’s hoping they both pay the full legal price including time served.